ALBANY — Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said today for the first time that he is open to providing facilities funds to privately housed charter schools “all over the state.”

One of the ideas being discussed in behind-closed-doors legislative negotiations, he said, is allowing charter schools to receive state funds to plug some of the budget gap associated with paying to operate in their own buildings.

“We’re talking about providing some form of money to allow that to happen all over the state,” Silver said after leaving a budget meeting with Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Senate co-leaders Dean Skelos and Jeff Klein.

He added that the “issue of tuition” was another thing being discussed, perhaps referring to a proposal to raise per-pupil funding for New York City charters.

Chalkbeat reported on Monday that a statewide building aid program for charter schools was likely to make it across the finish line when a final budget is set, which by law must happen by the end of the month. Other proposals to aid charter schools that the State Senate put forth are seen as less likely to move forward because they would be burdensome to local school districts, particularly New York City.

Indeed, Silver — whose leadership determines whether proposals come for a vote in the Assembly — has until now completely dismissed the Senate’s proposals, saying that they neglect the more urgent facilities issue of overcrowded New York City district schools that must house some classrooms in trailers. In the Assembly’s budget proposal, extra money is allocated to help the city eliminate the trailers.

Now, Silver’s apparent concession suggests that there is at least one pro-charter school policy change that he’s willing to support.

But he said charter schools would receive “just money” in the state budget, signaling that the Senate proposals to give protections to charter schools in public space would not get Assembly support.

Charter schools in private space must pay their rent and facilities fees out of their per-pupil funds and any private funds that they raise. In 2011, the city’s Independent Budget Office found a $2,300 per-pupil budget gap between charter schools in private space and district schools. Outside of the city, where 57 charter schools operate and where facilities costs are lower, the gap ranges from just under $1,000 to $2,000, according to a report compiled by the advocacy organization Northeast Charter Schools Network.

The majority of the city’s charter schools operate in city-owned buildings, in an arrangement that charter advocates say has allowed the sector to thrive. They say the charter sector could grow in other other urban school districts — including Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse, where student achievement has lagged — if charter schools there are given similar facilities support.

Critics say that giving privately managed charter schools access to extra public funds, and diverting the money away from cash-strapped district schools, would further threaten the state’s public education system.

“While out public schools are hemorrhaging programs, the Senate majority and the governor have clearly signaled that privately run charter schools that serve only 3 percent of students top the list of priorities,” Alliance for Quality Education’s Billy Easton said of the charter school proposals when they were approved two weeks ago.

ARTICLE COMMENTS

Michael M. (parent still)

Even after the charters have argued, to avoid public audit, that they are neither entities of the city nor of the state, and in some court cases have explicity argued that they are p-r-i-v-a-t-e? And despite charters’ access to private funds for capital improvements that public schools do not have access to? Tsk, tsk.

courseboss

If charters have argued the positions you state,”that they are neither entities of the city nor of the state, and in some court cases have explicity argued that they are p-r-i-v-a-t-e”, then why is allocating any taxpayer funds to them at all, constitutional? Does it not result in unequal treatment under the law? And if this kind of money is available in state coffers to give to private entities, then why would the plaintiffs of the Campaign for Fiscal Entity lawsuit not have first take on this money? Or should we just say the Governor is just a deadbeat when it comes to CFE and is giving away public resources to his friends with the expectation of campaign donations down the road – a seemingly conflict of interest if ever there were one.

Michael M. (parent still)

Politicians make decisions all the time with an eye to how those decisions will affect campaign donations, and the donors themselves make clear what they want. Until and unless there’s public campaign financing, I doubt that will change. Ever since the courts equated money with speech, our democracy has been for sale to the highest bidder.

However, while those decisions in the past may have been veiled to a degree, I find it particularly unseemly — and seamy — when it’s a straight up handout.

Further, I would suggest it’s beyond coincidence that the sudden generosity of Albany to charters coincides with their ever more brazen campaign to wield political power. Just try to imagine a proportional number of public school principals hiring a lobbyist, who makes twice what the Chancellor makes, doing the same.

I noticed that…

I guess Silver is not afraid of his constituents voting him out of office. In which pocket did Silver put away the hedgefund’s charter schools’ money?

Tim_Parent

It all depends on the size of the bump, of course, but if it is between 1-2 thousand and it leaves mayoral control over facilities untouched — meaning, given the parameters BDB has put in place, that it will be much more difficult for charters to enter/expand into co-locations — I’m not sure this is such a bad thing. If the bump is given only to charters that aren’t co-located, it could even give currently co-located charters an incentive to find their own space.

“Critics say that giving privately managed charter schools access to extra public funds, and diverting the money away from cash-strapped district schools.”
The students also attend the charter schools, which saves the district schools money. Thus the per student funding of the district schools for education is unaffected — less money, but fewer students as well.
Or is there something else going on here, something else those opposed to Charter Schools don’t want to talk about? That no one brings up?
What if the largest costs for the District schools do not involve providing the students with an education at all, at least not today’s students? What if PAST District employees who provided education for past students are still being paid for, AND they were given a big raise even as the average taxpayers has gotten poorer?
I’d like to see someone from the UFT step up and say that much of the money being spent by the schools has nothing to do with education, that it was part of a political deal and shouldn’t count. Or demand that the pay of charter school teachers be cut and money be diverted to pensions they won’t get, because that’s the situation new district teachers are in.
Outside NYC it isn’t just pensions and retiree health care. There is a massive excess level of non-instructional staff the schools are carrying, relative to the U.S. average. As I’ve noted, in NYC non-instructional staff and spending per student are and always have been low. Charter schools don’t have to carry that, either.
The issue is never the issue, when everyone was in on the deal.